Following the cancellation of the Yale-National University of Singapore College of Liberal Arts (Yale-NUS College) programme titled ‘Dissent and Resistance in Singapore’ led by renowned local playwright Alfian Sa’at, the Facebook page Singapore Matters (SM) released a video to express their thoughts on the programme.
We note here that Singapore Matters is a pro-establishment Facebook page and posts mainly on Singapore affairs, praising the figures in the establishment and demonising opposition figures and civil activists.
Specifically, the video claimed that the programme was “aimed at advocating civil disobedience, i.e breaking the law to advocate a political cause” and that “the class made no distinction between peaceful and legal resistance and the violent resistance that is now being seen in Hong Kong”.

Screengrab from video by Singapore Matters.
However, Alfian Sa’at had clarified in a Facebook post that the programme isn’t designed to train students on how to stage public protests. He wrote, “is not designed to train students ‘to stage protests in public’. Any comparisons with what is happening in Hong Kong right now is off the mark.”

Mr Sa’at explained in his post that the programme is “designed to guide students to think about dissent in Singapore. What is a dissident? Why does the media persist in labelling certain individuals or groups as ‘troublemakers’? Who are they making trouble for?”
He elaborated, “One of the best ways to get these insights is to meet some so-called dissidents face to face. To give the students unfiltered access. So that they can ask questions.”
Comparing the programme structure shared by Mr Sa’at on his Facebook post to SM’s video, we can see that what SM’s claims about the programme activities are inaccurate. The video claimed that “the class was going to teach students how to make placards, devise militant tactics aimed at challenging the law, and cause disruption to advocate one’s point of view.”

While there is a ‘Sign-making workshop’ as part of the programme, other activities aren’t as hostile as SM made them out to be. For example, one activity involved a visit to Speaker’s Corner to map out the topography of control and surveillance in the area, and later a discussion with various activists on civil disobedience versus accommodationist tactics, for example, pragmatic resistance.
That’s a far cry from teaching students how to ‘devise militant tactics’, don’t you think?
The SM video also said that “The class made no distinction between peaceful and legal resistance and the violent resistance that is now being seen in Hong Kong” adding that “it glorifies illegal protests, even violent ones”.

Again, this is baseless. Other activities outlined by Mr Sa’at were a workshop on activism by student organisation based in Yale-NUS, a talk by artists on artistic approaches in the public sphere, a presentation on the history of censorship in Singapore and two documentary screenings.
The first documentary is about Hong Kong’s civil rights activist Joshua Wong titled “Joshua: Teenager vs Superpower”. The second is “1987: Untracing the Conspiracy’, which is about those who were detained under the Internal Security Act in 1987 in Singapore.
The programme also includes a discussion on film and activism or film as activism. I’d argue that screening documentaries about an activist and the unsavoury side of Singapore history do not constitute ‘glorifying illegal protests’.
In a Facebook post on Sunday, journalist and activist Kirsten Han responded that the video “makes claims about the programme and line-up of activities that are untrue”. She then questioned the point of releasing such a video when the event has already been cancelled.

On Monday (16 September), she noted on Facebook that another page, Fabrications about the PAP, repeated those same claims made in the video.

There was also another page, FActually Singapore which used a clip from a speech she gave in 2016 to suggest that she wants Singapore to be like Hong Kong as it is today.

Factually Singapore wrote: “Kirsten Han does not hide her desire for Singapore to be like Hong Kong. With people fighting the police on the street and Hong Kongers fighting Hong Kongers on the street”
Ms Han countered that the main thrust of her argument in 2016 was outlined in a blog post on Medium. In it she wrote:

“Our goal right now is not to mobilise thousands to go marching in the streets. Our goal right now is to reach out to people, to build relationships, networks, trust and solidarity. It’s easier said than done, but it’s necessary, and there’s a role for everyone. There are so many access points, so many ways for us to exercise our democratic muscle, and to encourage others to do the same.”

In her second FB post, she once again questioned the point of making the claims, saying “It’s not like a petition or campaign is needed to get the “Dissent and Resistance” programme withdrawn; it’s already cancelled. So what is the point of sharing this kind of confusing misinformation?”
Ms Han raises a good point.
Another question we have is this: given the inaccurate claims made in the video against the programme and individuals involved in it, isn’t the video considered a form of harassment? If so, what are the authorities doing about it? Will they take action if at all?
Also, given the similar inaccuracies shared by the different Facebook pages, is there a concerted effort to discredit civil activists and sow fear among the population that there is an attempt to bring the protest movements of Hong Kong to Singapore?

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

【冠状病毒19】49岁本地女子从哈萨克斯坦返国后确诊!

本地昨日(6日)新增301起冠病19确诊病例,其中四例社区病例,四例为入境病例,累计总病例5万4千555例。 根据卫生部文告指出,其中四例入境病例中,有一名49岁本地女子,7月25日从哈萨克斯坦(Kazakhstan)返国;另三例为7月25日从印度抵达我国,两名为工作证持有人,一名则是眷属准证持有人。 另外,四起社区病例中,两名确诊的本地男子与其他病例无相关;而一名41岁的永久居民和39岁印度籍男子的检测则表明先前曾受到感染。 至于出院人数,本地新增263名出院人数,康复总人数则达到4万8千031个,目前仍有112人尚未出院,6千385人则转入社区设施,死亡病例则维持在27人,14座客工宿舍从感染群列表中移除。

False identities and disloyalties

Elaine Ong / The voice of the electorate at the recent General…

洞察行动党政策疏漏、勇于发声者 都被对付

源自作者人权律师张素兰 本周二(22日),我和数位友人一同在金文泰警局外,等候《新叙事》创办人覃炳鑫。他日前因涉嫌在未经授权下发布与选举相关的付费广告而助理选举官通报,警方随后也传唤他。我们无法得知何时被举报。 根据本月18日选举局的声明(选举过了的两个月后),大选期间,脸书接到通知需撤下五个与选举相关的“付费广告”。这些广告费共花了341元。覃炳鑫说,这些广告只是为了推广其中的帖文,包括一视频内有性感的声音重复“自由裁量权”(discretion)。 然而,总理公署似乎仍不满足于撤下五个付费广告。在他们获得压倒性胜利后的两个月(即93席位中赢得83席),现在开始向覃炳鑫追责。 张素兰:大选大获全胜,为何仍“赶尽杀绝”? 为何人民行动党表现地如此不合常理和充满报复性,耗费公帑调查这类琐事。即使所有的“广告”被法院认定为非法选举活动(这是不太可能的),对选举又有何用?人民行动党不能滥用纳税人的钱来满足他们的自大。 大部分的人甚至都没见过或听说过这些所谓的“广告”。我必须承认,其中一视频在选举期间出现,确实提及“自由裁量权”一词,而且是个精准的讽刺。但我也必须说,我并没有见过其余四个广告,即使我也是一名《新叙事》的订阅者。 即使如此,人民行动党在大选中的压倒性胜利,足以证明广告并未对结果有任何影响,其影响甚至是微乎其微,那为什么总理公署不让事情就这么算了? 我只得出一个结论。 这是行动党身上不幸和令人悲伤的特征。他致力于保障自身的利益和生存,不顾国人权益,即便他们希望享有一些基本人权如言论自由。行动党希望不惜一切代价维护权力。 因此,众所周知,他们被戏称为“霸凌者”。人民行动党必须确保所有能够看见他们政策漏洞,或是勇敢发声的人,都遭到对付(put down)。这是新加坡的悲哀。为什么我们的政府必须要肆意破坏这些有才能的新加坡人?…